MM: You wrote above, “But what you're mentioning here shows how the Open View requires God to be much more intelligent than the idea that there is just one future which God sees.” Is God "much more intelligent" because He knows countless possible outcomes rather than knowing precisely which way it will play out? I don’t think so.

What do you think?

I think it takes way more smarts to know which way, of all the possibilities, the scroll of time will unfold. From my prospective, God not only knows all the ways it could play out, He also knows exactly which one will play out.

Of course, His ability to know which way it will play out isn’t related to His intelligence as much as it is related to His gift of omnipresence. The fact our yesterdays and tomorrows are, from God’s perspective, now and always enables Him to know precisely how, from our perspective, our future will unfold.

Do you see what I mean?

I was pointing out that in one place you were arguing that it required more intelligence on the part of God to be able to discern the one future that will happen than the intelligence the Open View would require, but now you are saying it's not a function of God's intelligence at all. He knows these things by being omnipresent. There's all sorts of logical problems here. It's hard to know where to being. I guess I'll just mention three, and we can go into more detail about these later on, assuming you're interested.

One is that this viewpoint does not correspond to how God represents Himself in Scripture. You'd be forced to reinterpret large chunks of Scripture, to where the Scritpure says one thing, but that has to be reinterpreted to mean another in the light of the fact that God does not really experience anything as past/present/future like we do, but as an eternal now. For example, all the passages dealing with God's relenting, being frustrated, treating the future as conditional, promising He will react in a certain way if a certain thing is done, struggling with a decision, etc., etc. would have to be reinterpreted. This is a lot of Scripture!

Secondly, if reality is not past/present/future, but an eternal now, then our view of reality is just wrong. We *think* there is a past, present, and future, but there really isn't. How God perceives reality to be is how reality really is. You've talked about two reatlities, but that doesn't make sense. Ontologically, there can only be one. Epistimelogically there can be multiple realities, but I'm speaking ontologically, not epistemilogically. To say the same thing in simpler language, reality is what it is. Our perception of reality does not change the underlying reality. There is only one underlying reality. So if God perceives reality to be an eternal now, that's the way it is.

Thirdly, there is a logical problem involving free will having to do with not being able to do something different than what God knows will happen. The problem is that God has known in the past what will happen in our future, and things that happen in the past cannot be altered. So since the past cannot be altered, and that past includes God's knowledge of the future, which includes everything that will happen, the future cannot be changed anymore than the past. Since the future cannot be changed, we do not have the ability to choose to do anything different than what God saw will happen. E.g., if God sees you will eat pizza tomorrow for lunch, there is nothing you can do to alter that. God could show you what He saw, and you still couldn't alter it. You could see that He would show you what you saw, and you could see yourself seeing that He would show you what He saw, but you could not changed anything to be different from what was shown to you.

This last one is a bit subtle. I can elaborate on it if you wish.

MM: My point is (I'll address your point in a subsequent post), there are times when God does indeed use certain terms and titles to communicate with us in a way we can understand. “…He speaks to us in our own language, that we may better understand Him.” (ibid) Do you agree? What is she implying in this quote?

Sure there are times when God does that. He speaks of having wings to protect us, for example. There are many examples of this. However, there is no indication in Scripture that when God speaks of His emotions, His contemplating decisions, that He will change what He will do based on what we do, etc., that any of these things are anthropomorphic. This assumption is something added by the interpreter in order to keep a presupposed philosophy in tact. There is nothing in the text itself which would indicate it to be the case, for example, that God does not really express frustration when His creatures do not do what He wishes they would.

MM: Try this formula on for size:

A) God is omniscient
B) God is omnipresent
C) God is perfect
D) God cannot make a mistake
E) God does everything right

Therefore, based on A thru E, the fact the Great Controversy occurred is evidence it was inevitable. God was willing to allow it to play out.


MM: But is that what it means? Does the word "regret", in this context, mean what you think it means?


MM: But, according to you, He foresaw their poor choices. So how could He regret it. In what sense did He regret it?


MM: Not if the parent foresaw it, and chose to have the child anyhow, which is precisely what happened with God. He foresaw the GC and chose to create FMAs anyhow.


MM: Better alternative? How is - Creature might rebel, not sure, so create it anyhow - better?

Also, since God is perfect, what He did, therefore, was right. There is nothing circular about this logic or this conclusion. Obviously there were no better alternatives than what God did. He didn't make a mistake. He didn't do something He later regretted.


MM: Let's break it down:

A) Is God omniscient? Does He know everything, including which way the future will play out?

B) Is God omnipresent? Is He bound by our time and space continuum? Can He travel back and forth in our time and space? Or, is He, like us, limited to the present tense?

C) Is God perfect? Or, can the unfolding of time reveal He is sometimes imperfect?

D) Can God make a mistake? Does He do things He later wishes He hadn't done?

E) Does God do everything right? Or, are there times when He discovers there would have been a better alternative?

MM: From your perspective, God regrets the bad decision He made (to create FMAs in spite of knowing there was chance they would rebel). Whereas, from my perspective, God regrets the bad decisions FMAs make.


MM: What is about the language God used in Eden that leads you to conclude He knew right where Adam was, and that He knew Adam had indeed eaten the forbidden fruit?

I agree with you regarding the other texts you cited. What is your point? What do you think it means? I believe God foresaw the bad decisions FMAs would make, and that He has regretted their decisions from the beginning, before He created them. But this regret did not prevent Him from creating them.

MM: From your perspective, God regrets the bad decision He made (to create FMAs in spite of knowing there was chance they would rebel). Whereas, from my perspective, God regrets the bad decisions FMAs make.

It looks to me like you have this exactly backwards. Under your perspective, the decisions of FMAs are settled as soon as God decides to make them.

Regarding God regretting a decision He made, that's in Genesis. God said that.

Regarding your calling it a "bad" decision, I think that's unwise (if not blasphamous; please note, I've never suggested such a thing).


MM: What is about the language God used in Eden that leads you to conclude He knew right where Adam was, and that He knew Adam had indeed eaten the forbidden fruit?

Is it clear that God was engaging Adam and Eve in a conversation.

Who was there to witness what happened? Who else but God could have known the things that were said in Genesis?

I agree with you regarding the other texts you cited. What is your point? What do you think it means? I believe God foresaw the bad decisions FMAs would make, and that He has regretted their decisions from the beginning, before He created them. But this regret did not prevent Him from creating them.

There is nothing in Scripture that presents the idea you are presenting. Scripture never presents God as regretting something that hasn't occurred yet. He, just like we, regrets things after they occur.

MM: From your perspective, God didn't know in advance about the bad decisions FMAs would make. So, I suppose you're right, God regretted not only His decision to create them but He also regretted their bad decisions. Which compounds the problem, I see it. Your view went from bad to worse.

Also, why would God regret a decision He made if it was a good one? If it wasn't a good one, what was it? Was it a bad decision? If not, what kind of decision was it? An uninformed one?


Tom, you're not answering my question. I'm talking about the words God used, not what you think they mean. The obvious meaning of the words God used do not reflect what you say they mean. Why do you feel so free to make His words say something they clearly do not mean?

I believe this is an example of God pretending not to know something in order to relate to us on our level. You seem to disagree with this observation. Do you?


From your perspective, God would have foreseen what actually happened as one of many possible outcomes. Are you suggesting God didn't feel anything when He foresaw it as a possibility? That it didn't cause Him to stop and wonder, What if?

What I am saying is that God did indeed know in advance that FMAs were going to rebel, and that it caused Him to stop and ponder. He had strong feelings about it. But He chose to create them anyhow. The end result was worth it: 1) A minority of FMAs will be redeemed, and 2) FMAs will see a side of God's character that will guarantee they will never choose to rebel again.

By the way, it appears you overlooked a post (#92730). Three posts above this one.

Response to post #92730

MM: Try this formula on for size:

A) God is omniscient
B) God is omnipresent
C) God is perfect
D) God cannot make a mistake
E) God does everything right

Therefore, based on A thru E, the fact the Great Controversy occurred is evidence it was inevitable. God was willing to allow it to play out.

Any reasoning that leads to the conclusion that sin was inevitable is specious. No explanation can be given for the existence of sin.

Quote:
MM: I assume quoting this text in answer to my question means you believe God regretted creating FMAs.

TE: That's what the text says.

MM: But is that what it means? Does the word "regret", in this context, mean what you think it means?

Yes. God revealed to us how He felt. Who better would know?

Quote:
However, according to your view, God thought the risk was worth it. So, why would He regret creating them?

TE: Because humans made such poor choices.

MM: But, according to you, He foresaw their poor choices. So how could He regret it. In what sense did He regret it?

God foresaw the possibility of the poor choices, but did not expect them to make these choices. God says the same thing regarding Israel, by the way. Here's an example:



Actually this isn't expressing regret, but exasperation. But it demonstrates God's creatures making poor choices which God do not expect them to make.

Quote:
MM: But He was willing to create them hoping they wouldn’t rebel? And then regret it afterwards because they chose to rebel? This doesn’t make sense to me, Tom.

TE: Say a parent has a child, and that child becomes Adolf Hitler. Mightn't the parent regret having had that child?

MM: Not if the parent foresaw it, and chose to have the child anyhow, which is precisely what happened with God.

What parent would choose to have Adolph Hitler? Anyway, I was answering your question as to why it would make sense, from my perspective, for God to do something and then regret it. Why are you inserting your perspective here? Maybe this is why it's not making sense to you. Out unwanted perspective! Shoosh!


He foresaw the GC and chose to create FMAs anyhow.

Quote:
MM: Tom, it appears you have rejected my answer, which is - Here’s what makes perfect sense to me. God is omniscient and omnipresent, therefore, He knows exactly which way the future will play out. The fact things resulted in a GC is evidence there was no way around it; otherwise He would have done things differently.

TE: Once again, this avoiding my argument, as well as my question. My question is, why would God choose to create a being that was certain to sin? That really doesn't make sense, does it? Apparently, by default, you agree, because you have offered no explanation as to why God would do this.

To simply assert that God would have done something better if there had been a better alternative is just arguing in a circle. I've given you a better alternative. I've specified exactly how God could have done it:

For creatures i=0 to # of creatures:
a)If creature will sin, skip creature
b)If creature will not sin, create creature

This would have led to a universe filled with FMAs that wouldn't sin. But instead God did:

a)If creature will sin, create it anyway.

This certainly looks like a questionable decision. But we know God does not make questionable decisions. There your position needs to be rethought. Either that, or you should be able to provide some justification as to why God made the decision He did, some reason as to why God would prefer a universe with sin over one without sin.

MM: Better alternative? How is - Creature might rebel, not sure, so create it anyhow - better?

MM, you're mixing perspectives again. I'm talking about the alternative God had from *your* perspective. The alternatives were:

a)Create a being that God knew would sin.
b)Not create a being that God knew would sin.

b) is a better alternative than a). Anyone can see that. That your position forces you to somehow try to argue that a) is better than b) demonstrates the problem of your perspective.

Also, since God is perfect, what He did, therefore, was right. There is nothing circular about this logic or this conclusion. Obviously there were no better alternatives than what God did. He didn't make a mistake. He didn't do something He later regretted.

I've explained the logic several times now. Do you not understand it? Here it is again:

a.God's decisions are perfect.
b.If we take a position that leads to the conclusion that God made a poor decision, there is a problem with our position.

Your position leads to the conclusion that God created a being He knew would sin. God could have chosen not to do so. To not create a being that will certainly sin is better than creating a being that will not certainly sin, just as not having Adolph Hitler as a child is better than not having Adolph Hitler as a child. Any unbiased human being without some axe to grind, some philosophy to defend, can see this.

Quote:
MM: You rejected my answer to [1]. And, your suggestion regarding [2] was not a viable option; otherwise God would have opted for it. God is perfect, therefore, what He did was right. The fact FMAs ended up rebelling, in spite of the fact He knew they would, does not detract from the fact that what He did was right. Again, He is perfect, therefore, everything He does is perfect. There is only one perfect way. There cannot be two or more perfect ways.

This is just the same thing again, arguing in a circle. Let's say you believe that God uses a magic eight ball to make a decision. I ask you, why would God use a magic eight ball to decide to make FMAs? Look what happened. They sinned. Certainly there would have been a better method than using a magic eight ball.

You respond, "Everything God does is perfect. His decisions are always best. There is no more than one perfect way. Therefore God's decision to use a magic eight ball is correct."

This is what you are arguing. You are simply assuming your position is correct, and then using the same logic I'm using for the eight ball to defend it.

MM: Let's break it down:

A) Is God omniscient? Does He know everything, including which way the future will play out?

One could ask, "Is God omnipotent? Can He make a rock so big He can't lift it?"

Your idea of omniscience is mixing up. God, in order to know be omniscient, does not need to know how the future will play out. He needs to know the future as it is. God's omniscience is bound to reality. You're idea of omniscience is asking God to see something in a way it is not, or, to put it another way, is based on a view of reality that is not accurate. This causes your argument to fall apart.

B) Is God omnipresent? Is He bound by our time and space continuum? Can He travel back and forth in our time and space? Or, is He, like us, limited to the present tense?

C) Is God perfect? Or, can the unfolding of time reveal He is sometimes imperfect?

D) Can God make a mistake? Does He do things He later wishes He hadn't done?

E) Does God do everything right? Or, are there times when He discovers there would have been a better alternative?

MM, once again, you are simply assuming what your are trying to prove, which doesn't prove anything. Especially in A), you have your own idea of what omniscience is, and then argue based on that assumption being correct. What if it's not? It would still be the case that God's decisions are perfect.

The thing we need to keep fixed is the truth that God's decisions are perfect. Your view or my view of things might be wrong, but we can agree that God's decisions are correct.

Anyway, I think you may have missed the point regarding how you are arguing in a circle. Please consider the magic 8-ball example again, and perhaps you can see it. You are being concerned with the content of what you believe, rather than the form of your argument. We've had this sort of discussion many times in the past. Perhaps you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Rosangela, it seems to me that your arguments lead to the conclusion that it once God decided to create beings with free will, it was inevitable that sin would happen. So it would appear that the process of creating beings with free will was flawed, since it could only lead to sin.

I know I've asked this a couple of times, but don't recall you're addressing this, but sometime I forget things, so I apologize if I'm making you repeat yourself here.

There's a number of ways one can see that the arguments you have been presenting lead to this conclusion. I'll present one way here.

When God created Lucifer, He created a being He knew would sin. If there was no alternative here, if God had to create Lucifer once He decided to create beings with free will, then it's been shown that the creation of beings with free will must lead to sin.

Consider the alternative where God did not create Lucifer. Either some other being would have sinned, or not. If so, then free will would still have led to sin.

Consider the case where no being would lead to sin. If this alternative were superior to the alternative of there being sin in the universe, God would have chosen it. Since God did not choose this alternative, it must be the case that the alternative of God's creating a universe where sin was certain to occur was better than the alternative of a universe with no sin. Since this is not a viable alternative, we are led to the conclusion that once God decided to create beings with free will, it was inevitable that sin would occur.

So, in conclusion, please either agree with me that, from your perspective, my assertion is correct here, that God could not create beings with free will without sinning coming about, or postulate some alternative whereby God could have created beings with free will without sin coming about.

I guess a much simpler argument, given what you've been asserting, is simply that if God had not created beings that would sin, then that would not be respecting free will. That's not as tight an argument as the above, but leads to the same request, which would be to please postulate some alternative in which God could have created free will beings without sin occurring, if you don't agree with the assertion that your position leads to the conclusion that God's decision to create free will beings made sin inevitable.

TE: The thing we need to keep fixed is the truth that God's decisions are perfect. Your view or my view of things might be wrong, but we can agree that God's decisions are correct.

MM: I agree. The fact FMAs rebelled does not mean God made the wrong decision. This is true whether we view it from my perspective or yours. Do you agree?

By the way, the only reason you think the form of my logic is faulty is due to the fact you believe my view means God could have chosen not to create Lucifer. I have repeatedly attempted to demonstrate that no such option was available to God. The fact God is perfect is proof that what He did, in spite of the fact FMAs rebelled, was the only viable option available to Him.

---

TE: God foresaw the possibility of the poor choices [FMAs were capable of making], but did not expect them to make these choices.

MM: I have some questions about this idea:

1. Elsewhere you wrote that God knew how the future would play out but that He didn't know how each individual would behave. Here you seem to be saying the opposite, that God did foresee their individual choices. How do you reconcile these two conflicting observations?

2. If He foresaw their bad choices, how, then, could He regret it? What specifically did He regret? Creating them? Or, their bad choices?

3. If He foresaw them making bad choices, why did He create them?

4. If He foresaw them making bad choices, why didn't He expect it? Was He surprised? Did He see it coming?

5. If He didn't expect them to sin, what else happens that God didn't expect? How can we be sure God is right about the future? Will the future pay out in a way God doesn't expect?

MM: Why would God regret a decision He made if it was a good one? If it wasn't a good one, what was it? Was it a bad decision? If not, what kind of decision was it? An uninformed one?


MM: Tom, you're not answering my question. I'm talking about the words God used, not what you think they mean. The obvious meaning of the words God used do not reflect what you say they mean. Why do you feel so free to make His words say something they clearly do not mean?

I believe this is an example of God pretending not to know something in order to relate to us on our level. You seem to disagree with this observation. Do you?


MM: From your perspective, God would have foreseen what actually happened as one of many possible outcomes. Are you suggesting God didn't feel anything when He foresaw it as a possibility? That it didn't cause Him to stop and wonder, What if?

What I am saying is that God did indeed know in advance that FMAs were going to rebel, and that it caused Him to stop and ponder. He had strong feelings about it. But He chose to create them anyhow. The end result was worth it: 1) A minority of FMAs will be redeemed, and 2) FMAs will see a side of God's character that will guarantee they will never choose to rebel again.